M/S VEER OIL & GENERAL MILLS,HARYANA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HARYANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4891/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 April 2026AY 2012-133 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the Assessing Officer failed to dispose of the assessee's objections to the reopening by way of a speaking order, as mandated by Supreme Court decisions. This failure vitiates the entire reassessment proceedings.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns assessment year 2012-13, arising from proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act. The primary issue raised by the assessee was the validity of the reopening of assessment.

What were the issues?

The key legal issue was whether the reopening of assessment was valid when the Assessing Officer failed to provide a speaking order disposing of the assessee's objections. The Tribunal also considered the validity of the assessee's return filed in response to the reopening notice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv, Adv. Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv
Hearing: 08.04.2026Pronounced: 29.04.2026

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1071242726(1) dated 16.12.2024, involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

ITA No.4891/Del/2025 Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. For the reasons stated in the Assessee’s condonation averments, delay of 162 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

3.

We advert to first and foremost issue of validity of the impugned reopening itself as canvassed at the assessee’s behest. Learned counsel vehemently submits that the same is not sustainable in law since the learned Assessing Officer had nowhere disposed off the assessee’s objections thereto filed on 30.11.2019 (at pages 3 to 4 in the paperbook). The Revenue’s case on the other hand places the strong reliance on the CIT(A) impugned lower appellate discussion at page No. 4 in para 5.1.3 that there were no evidence adduced at the assessee’s behest to the very effect. The fact however remains that there is no specific rebuttal to the assessee’s return file forming part of the case records. The Revenue at this stage again seeks to buttress the point that the assessee’s return is not a valid one since not filed within the time specified in section 148 notice.

4.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s foregoing rival stands. We first of all make it

2 | P a g e

ITA No.4891/Del/2025 clear that hon’ble apex court landmark decision in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd., v. ITO, 259 ITR 19 (SC), settled the issue that such objections to a reopening ought to be disposed off by a speaking order before the corresponding reassessment is finalised. Learned counsel further quotes PCIT vs. Tupperware India (P) Ltd. 65 taxmann.com 17 (Del) that such a failure on the Assessing Officer’s part indeed vitiates the reopening etc. We thus take not of the assessee’s return filed herein forming basis of impugned re-assessment to reject the Revenue’s stand and hereby quash the impugned reopening on failure of the Assessing Officer part to dispose of the taxpayer’s objections in very terms.

All remaining pleadings between the parties on merits stand rendered academic.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 29.04.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (NAVEEN CHANDRA) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 29.04.2026 Pooja Mittal/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi 3 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →